PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 96 PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE
carp for a plurality of epi itles maj be sel aside, it ia less easy to Bel aside the testimony of the extanl epistle it- sell in the passage cited. To refer rd avrn to the pre- ceding yuiiiTf in Kvpitfi seems a what difficult, for
nowhere previously in this epistle has the apostle ex- pressly enjoined on his readers %aipfiv iv Kvpitp, and one does nol si e w bal on this hypothesis is the propriety of such expressions as oicvnpov and aa^>a\iq\ and to lay the Btress "ii the ypaQuv, as Wieseler proposes (Chronolo- <i'i< des i/'. Zeit. p. 158), so a- to make the apostle refer to some verbal message previously senl to the Philip- pians, the Bubstance of which he was now aboul to pul into writing, seems no less .s<>; for not only docs the epistle contain no allusion to any oral message, bul in ihi> case the writer would have said Km ypcaptiv. A large number of critics follow Pelagius in the explana- tion, "eadem repetere qua prasens dixeram;" bul ii may be doubted if so important a clause may he legiti- mately dragged in to complete the apostle's meaning, without any authority from the context. Hence many have concluded that the apostle alludes to some written communication previously sent by him to the Philip- pians l bo Hahnlein, Flatb, Meyer, Bleek, Schenkel, etc). lint, besides the lack of all evidence of such lost epistles in general, the assumption here must be pronounced in a high degree doubtful and precarious. Hence we con- clude thai ra avrd refers to the %alpuv, which is the pervading though) of the epistle (i. 1. 18; ii. 17. etc).
and which seems to have been the more dwell upon as the actual circumstances of the case might very natu- rally have suggested the contrary feeling (hence 6*1/77- pov). See Ellicott, ad loc. Ewald (Sendsckreiben des Ap. Paulus. 1 1. 131) is of opinion that Paul senl several epistles to the Philippians; and he refers to the texts ii. 12 and iii. 18 as partly proving this. But some ad- ditional confirmation or explanation of this conjecture is requisite before it can be admitted as either probable or necessary.
There i- a break in the sense at the end of the second Chapter of the epistle, which every careful reader noilSl
have observed. It is indeed quite natural that an epis- tle written amid exciting circumstances, personal dan- gers, and various distraction.- should hear in one place at leasl a mark of interruption, Le Moyne (1685) thought ii was anciently divided into two parts. Hein- richs L810), followed by Paulus (1817), has conjectured from this abrupt recommencement thai the two parts are two distinct epistles, of which the first, together with the conclusion of the epistle (iv, 21 23), was in- tended for public use in the Church, and the second ex- clusively for the apostle's special friends in Philippi. It is noi easy to see what sufficient foundation exists for this theory, or what illustration of the meaning of the epistle could be derived from it. It has met with a distinct reply from Krau-e (1811 and L818 1 : and the integrity of the epistle has nol been questioned by recent critics.
II. Finn and Place of Writing.— The constant tradi- tion that this epistle was written at Rome by Paul in his captivitj «* impugned tir>i by Oeder (1732), who, disregarding the facl thai the apostle was in prison (i. 7. 13, I 1 1 whin he wrote, imagined that lie was al < 'or- inth (see Wolfs Curat PkUologicce, i\ . 168, 270); and then by Paulus (1799), Schulz (1829), Bbttger (1837), and [iilliel (1841), In whose opinion the epistle was written during the apostle's confinement at Cssarea 1 Vets \\i\. 23). Bul the references to the "palace" (pnetorium, i, 13), and to "Caesar's household" 1 iv, '.'■_' 1. seem to poinl to Borne rather than to Csesarea; and
there is no reason w halever lor Supposing thai I he apOS-
ile felt in ( tesarea that extreme uncertainty of life con- nected with the approaching decision of his cause which he must have fell towards tin- end of his captivity at Koine, and which he expresses in this epistle ii. 19, 20; ii. 17; in. 10); and. fun her. the dissemination of the
Gospel described in Phil. i. 12 18 is 1 .yen hinted al
in Luke's account of the Ctesarean captii iiy. hut is de- scnh. d by him as taking place ai 1; :(comp.Actsxxi\'|
23 with xxviii, 30, 31). Even Reuss [Gesck. d. X. T. I860), who assigns to Csesarea three of Paul's epistles, which are generally considered to have been written at Rome, is decided in his conviction that the Epistle to the Philippians was written at Rome.
Assuming then that the epistle was written ai Rome during the imprisonment mentioned in the last chapter of the Acts, ii may he shown from a single fact thai it could not have been written long before the end of the
two years. The disiress of the Philippians 011 account
of Epaphroditus's sickness was known al Rome when the epistle was written ; this implies four journeys, sep- arated by some indefinite intervals, to or from Philippi and Pome, between the commencement of Paul's cap- tivity and the writing of the epistle. The Philippians were informed of his imprisonment, and sent Lpaphro- ditus: they were informed of their messenger's sickness, and sent their message of condolence. Further, the ab- sence of Luke's name from the salutations to a Church where he was well known implies thai he was absent from Pome w hen the epistle was written : so dues Paul's declaration (ii. 20) that no one who remained with him fell an equal interest with Timothy in the welfare of the Philippians. By comparing the mention of Luke in ( ol. iv. 14 and Philem. 24 with the abrupt conclusion ol his narrative in the Acts, we are led to the inference thai he left Pome after those two epistles were written and before the cud of the two years' captivity. Lastly, it is obvious from Phil. i. "_'ii that Paul, when he wrote, tilt his position to be very critical, and we know thai ii he- came more precarious as the two years drew to a close. Assuming that Paul's acquittal and release took place in 58, we may date the Epistle to the Philippians early in that year.